Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.
~ Thomas Jefferson

Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Remembrance Day, Memorial Day - for some

Yes, I realize it is the day after. Yesterday was indeed Memorial Day, or Remembrance Day as I believe the Canadians called it the last time I visited Victoria on Vancouver Island in British Columbia. (It was also my anniversary, seventeen years with the lovely lady who was silly enough to marry me, although we've know each other - and loved each other - since 1978. Another "remembrance" for me.)

What actually occasions this note is a post I just now read by Wesley Pruden, posted on the JWR (Jewish World Review) web site. He was speaking of the origins of Memorial Day, and the people involved. At the end of the post - where it so often seems the "meat" of a story resides - he spoke of Gen. Joe Wheeler, a Confederate general who also served with the "Union" army, when he fought the Spanish in Cuba. He wrote:

"The echoes of shot and shell that had summoned men to battle were barely beginning to fade when America stood at the cusp of war with Spain just as the century ended. Not everyone though it was a good idea to organize Southerners into an army so soon after Appomattox. Someone had the good idea of offering command to a former Confederate officer, and to Gen. Joe Wheeler, a hard-hitting cavalry commander from Alabama who briefly delayed Sherman's torching of Atlanta. He and his troops fought well in Cuba, though in the din of battle at Las Guasimas he forgot where he was and rallied his men with the cry: "Let's go, boys! We've got the damnyankees on the run again."

He died with his boots on in Brooklyn a decade later, pleased to parade in his uniform of Union blue, and he is one of the few senior Confederate officers allowed to sleep in a grave at Arlington. The flags of the two American nations whose uniforms he wore decorated his grave this year."

As a technical Southerner, having been born in Houston (although raised in New York and New England and descended from French-Canadian stock), and being aware of the truth of the War of Northern (Federal) Aggression, my sympathies lie with the South. So I was especially pleased to read Pruden's words confirming his understanding that there were indeed two American nations for a brief and bloody period of time. Not one nation and some rebels, but indeed another nation, the Confederate States of America.

And that stirs another memory, another remembrance that may be withheld from our children when they are taught American history, deprived of this knowledge as were many of our generation as we grew up:

Arlington National Cemetery, where so many of our war dead are buried, and where Memorial Day takes on the most serious of overtones, was the home of Robert E. Lee, stolen from his widow as punishment for his leading the fight against the North's insistence that the Southern states would not be allowed to go their own way, to secede from the "Union". It took a Supreme Court ruling and an act of Congress to return it to Lee's descendant, his grandson Custis Lee. One year later, in 1875, he sold it back to the government.

For quite some time, Confederate soldiers were refused burial there, but eventually the North relented, and there is now a Confederate section where some of "the gray" were allowed to be moved and re-interred. Relatively few are the Confederate soldiers who lie there, to be honored with the rest of our fallen warriors, but they should be remembered as well.

Freedom? What freedom?

Just finished reading more horror tales about the TSA. Rape victims being thrown to the floor when they recoil in terror from being groped by TSA agents, six-year-old little girls crying and begging "don't touch me there", in spite of the fact that John Pistole, the head of TSA, has publicly stated no children under twelve would be groped, er, be subjected to an "enhanced at-down".

Now I have read that the government is requiring the installation of "black boxes", data recorders, in every new vehicle sold starting tomorrow, June of 2011. Ostensibly, these devices are placed so that information can be obtained concerning the moments leading up to an accident, including speed, braking, seat belt use, etc. Similar to the data recorder in commercial aircraft. (Will they now be required in civilian aircraft as well?)

[Notice in this photo that the box appears to be marked for a 2004 GMC Envoy. I believe that means that many vehicles sold before June of 2011 already have the boxes, but the will begin to be mandatory starting tomorrow. And all of you folks who love your OnStar? You are already complete with all the equipment needed to track your movement and vehicle operation, but you have the added benefit of a remote operator being able to shut your vehicle off even while you are driving it.]

You can see where this is going, can't you? Weren't wearing your seat belt when someone crashes into you running a red light? You still get a ticket, and your insurance company refuses to pay for treatment of your injuries because you weren't being responsible for your own safety. Exceeding the speed limit when it happened? Another ticket, and perhaps your insurance company now refuses to pay for repairs to your vehicle (I did mention the other driver was an illegal alien without any insurance of his own, didn't I? Or an otherwise responsible citizen who let their insurance lap because they lost their job in this recession?)

Government has become so intrusive, it is possible to claim with strict veracity that we are as put upon as people who lived in Soviet-era Russia. Sure, we have a much better life-style, more comfort, but as far as movement within the country, surveillance by camera and tracking devices, etc. the Soviets couldn't hold a candle to our government.

How many of you realize that law enforcement has started seizing GPS units from vehicles they have stopped, to document the speeds the vehicle has been traveling at? Didn't know that data was stored on your unit, or just didn't think about having it removed from your vehicle without a warrant? Remember, there is no Fourth Amendment anymore. Post 9/11 TSA and the Supreme Court of Indiana and the Supreme Court of the United States have seen to that. May I make a recommendation? If you are stopped for speeding, or are involved in an accident where you were exceeding the speed limit just prior to the accident, know ahead of time how to wipe the memory on you device, especially if it is built into the vehicle, as so many are these days. I think you can do that with most units, currently at least. If not, and it is portable, consider destroying it. Replacement would be cheaper than any ticket you might receive, although you might lose in court and have to pay anyway. It's unlikely you'll slide if they have the data from your Tom Tom or Garmin. (Besides, I'd rather deprive the pr*cks
of the satisfaction of seizing my unit.)

If you have a vehicle that already has a data recorder, what can I say? Personally, I would rather pay a fine for tampering with, or removing, the unit (I wonder how draconian they will get with that bit of legislation?) than to suffer the consequences of the fines involved or loss of coverage should anything untoward happen.

I am probably being naive, though. Somehow I think the insurance companies will be quick to include new restrictions in our policies that negate coverage if we knowingly tamper with such a device, don't you? Law enforcement and the courts will most likely make such tampering presumptive evidence of guilt in any accident or traffic stop that occurs after disconnecting or destroying said device.

And you thought you were still "free", didn't you? You own guns, have permission from the government for concealed carry (unless you are lucky enough to live in one of the four states that recognizes the Second Amendment), can still drive your car from Point A to Point B without passing through a metal detector, skin-irradiating scanner, or sexual assault by TSA. You are still allowed - sometimes - to assemble peacefully (if you get a permit first), speak your mind (at least 1000 feet away from any mosque), and live where you want (until Pfizer, or Bechtel, or your local imam wants your property under eminent domain.) You can still vote for the socialist candidate of your choice, and vote for laws that protect your needs or desires (until the Federal Department of Justice decides it will not enforce those laws, like DOMA, or against AG Holder's "people".) You are still safe within your home, your castle (until SWAT decides they want to pay you a visit, or your local Sheriff decides to do "random house-to-house" searches.)

Yes, we are certainly passing on our long heritage of freedom to our children. If you accept our government's new definition of freedom. For the folks who continue to say, "Yes, but it's still the best place of any on earth", I must ask you: having become use to rape, isn't it swell that you haven't been sodomized? Yet. Could it be that it is getting awfully close to the time when it will be necessary (it is already desirable) to "tamper with or destroy" the mechanism of injustice?

Monday, May 30, 2011

The Guerena Shooting: Initial Analysis

Came across a web site called "Confederate Yankee" where a gentleman who sounds as if he knows what he is talking about (states he has SWAT experience) does a critique of what is known about the SWAT killing of Jose Guerena, including a breakdown of what is visible on the helmet cam video that is available on the 'Net. I don't know if that is the entire video, or if it has been edited or cut short, but he bases his conclusions on what is available. The first half is a lengthy description of what SWAT is supposed to be, and how it is meant to operate. Well worth reading, but if your time and/or attention span are short, the analysis begins about halfway down into the article.

Mike M. is a lot gentler in his statement concerning how Pima County SWAT handled this incident than I would have been, even though I am a former peace keeper with law enforcement experience myself. He posts at the end of his article (please read it):
As you read further accounts of this situation keep in mind that the actions of the police must be judged only on what they knew, or reasonably should have known, when they arrived to serve the warrant that morning. Post-shooting attempts to paint Guerena as the worlds most dangerous drug dealer and homicidal maniac (who, faced with four armed men he likely recognized as police did not take his weapon off safe) mean nothing at all, other than that the police are furiously spinning to justify what may turn out to be unjustifiable.

I don’t have all the facts. No one does. But based on the video, and what is currently known, it is very hard indeed to see how the police acted with anything less than amazing incompetence, incompetence that cost the life of a former Marine, a man who was apparently a solid citizen working hard in a copper mine to provide for his young family.

* * * * * * * * * *

As Mike M. was, I also was amazed by the team member who ducked in at the last minute to shove his pistol past the heads of several of his teammates in order to unleash several shots himself, "me too" shots as Mike characterized them, shots that appeared not even to have been aimed, although he might have been shooting at Guerena's body as it lay on the floor. (I wonder if the coroner will do a forensic ballistics work-up to indicate whose bullets struck Guerena and how many hit him after he was already down and no longer a threat by even the wildest imagination.) Thank the Lord the wife and child were not struck by these or any of the previous rounds these miscreants blazed away with into that home.

It is my fervent hope, although I am too cynical to expect it, that a real investigation of this incident will be done, and that the planners and executors (intentional use of the word) of this SWAT debacle will suffer serious consequences. In either a legal or extra-legal fashion.

What a real statesman looks like

I'm too slow posting this, as it has been some days since Bibi's speech. I was moved to listen to, and read, Netanyahu's speech by a post on Double Tapper's blog where he insisted that readers needed to hear this speech given before Congress.

Yes, Israel has its liberals, its people who fail to see the dangers of Islam - including the Arabs who are part of its very government, in the Knesset. Stop for a minute (a second?) and think of which muslim country allows Jews in its main legislative body. Didn't take long, did it? Netanyahu himself has been to willing to go along with some of the ridiculous demands of our government in seeking peace with his neighbors. Personally, I would not be as accommodating as he has been. Yet he remains a true statesman, as he is willing to consider the establishment of a Palestinian state where there never has been one before, let alone on land that was Israel's thousands of years ago, before they were driven out.

After you read this, or listen to it if your bandwidth permits it less painfully than my slow connection, please stop for a moment and consider the difference between what we have - a leader who would rather play golf poorly than lead our nation (probably just as well, as he is even worse at leading than he is at golf) - and what the nation of Israel is blessed with as a leader.

I am deeply honored by your warm welcome. And I am deeply honored that you have given me the opportunity to address Congress a second time. Mr. Vice President, do you remember the time we were the new kids in town? And I do see a lot of old friends here. And I do see a lot of new friends of Israel here. Democrats and Republicans alike.

Israel has no better friend than America. And America has no better friend than Israel. We stand together to defend democracy. We stand together to advance peace. We stand together to fight terrorism. Congratulations America, Congratulations, Mr. President. You got bin Laden. Good riddance.

In an unstable Middle East, Israel is the one anchor of stability. In a region of shifting alliances, Israel is America’s unwavering ally. Israel has always been pro-American. Israel will always be pro-American.

My friends, you don’t need to do nation building in Israel. We’re already built. You don’t need to export democracy to Israel. We’ve already got it. You don’t need to send American troops to defend Israel. We defend ourselves. You’ve been very generous in giving us tools to do the job of defending Israel on our own. Thank you all, and thank you President Obama, for your steadfast commitment to Israel’s security. I know economic times are tough. I deeply appreciate this.

Support for Israel’s security is a wise investment in our common future. For an epic battle is now unfolding in the Middle East, between tyranny and freedom. A great convulsion is shaking the earth from the Khyber Pass to the Straits of Gibraltar. The tremors have shattered states and toppled governments. And we can all see that the ground is still shifting. Now this historic moment holds the promise of a new dawn of freedom and opportunity. Millions of young people are determined to change their future. We all look at them. They muster courage. They risk their lives. They demand dignity. They desire liberty.

These extraordinary scenes in Tunis and Cairo, evoke those of Berlin and Prague in 1989. Yet as we share their hopes, but we also must also remember that those hopes could be snuffed out as they were in Tehran in 1979. You remember what happened then. The brief democratic spring in Iran was cut short by a ferocious and unforgiving tyranny. This same tyranny smothered Lebanon’s democratic Cedar Revolution, and inflicted on that long-suffering country, the medieval rule of Hezbollah.

So today, the Middle East stands at a fateful crossroads. Like all of you, I pray that the peoples of the region choose the path less travelled, the path of liberty. No one knows what this path consists of better than you. This path is not paved by elections alone. It is paved when governments permit protests in town squares, when limits are placed on the powers of rulers, when judges are beholden to laws and not men, and when human rights cannot be crushed by tribal loyalties or mob rule.

Israel has always embraced this path, in the Middle East has long rejected it. In a region where women are stoned, gays are hanged, Christians are persecuted, Israel stands out. It is different.

As the great English writer George Eliot predicted over a century ago, that once established, the Jewish state will “shine like a bright star of freedom amid the despotisms of the East”. Well, she was right. We have a free press, independent courts, an open economy, rambunctious parliamentary debates.You think you guys are tough on one another in Congress? Come spend a day in the Knesset. Be my guest.

Courageous Arab protesters, are now struggling to secure these very same rights for their peoples, for their societies. We’re proud that over one million Arab citizens of Israel have been enjoying these rights for decades. Of the 300 million Arabs in the Middle East and North Africa, only Israel’s Arab citizens enjoy real democratic rights. I want you to stop for a second and think about that. Of those 300 million Arabs, less than one-half of one-percent are truly free, and they’re all citizens of Israel.

This startling fact reveals a basic truth: Israel is not what is wrong about the Middle East. Israel is what is right about the Middle East.

Israel fully supports the desire of Arab peoples in our region to live freely. We long for the day when Israel will be one of many real democracies in the Middle East. Fifteen years ago, I stood at this very podium, and said that democracy must start to take root in the Arab World. Well, it’s begun to take root. This beginning holds the promise of a brilliant future of peace and prosperity. For I believe that a Middle East that is genuinely democratic will be a Middle East truly at peace.

But while we hope and work for the best, we must also recognize that powerful forces oppose this future.They oppose modernity. They oppose democracy. They oppose peace. Foremost among these forces is Iran. The tyranny in Tehran brutalizes its own people. It supports attacks against American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. It subjugates Lebanon and Gaza. It sponsors terror worldwide.

When I last stood here, I spoke of the dire consequences of Iran developing nuclear weapons. Now time is running out, and the hinge of history may soon turn. For the greatest danger facing humanity could soon be upon us: A militant Islamic regime armed with nuclear weapons.

Militant Islam threatens the world. It threatens Islam. I have no doubt that it will ultimately be defeated. It will eventually succumb to the forces of freedom and progress. But like other fanaticisms that were doomed to fail, militant Islam could exact a horrific price from all of us before its inevitable demise.

A nuclear-armed Iran would ignite a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. It would give terrorists a nuclear umbrella. It would make the nightmare of nuclear terrorism a clear and present danger throughout the world. I want you to understand what this means. They could put the bomb anywhere. They could put it on a missile. It could be on a container ship in a port, or in a suitcase on a subway.

Now the threat to my country cannot be overstated. Those who dismiss it are sticking their heads in the sand. Less than seven decades after six million Jews were murdered, Iran’s leaders deny the Holocaust of the Jewish people, while calling for the annihilation of the Jewish state.

Leaders who spew such venom, should be banned from every respectable forum on the planet. But there is something that makes the outrage even greater: The lack of outrage. In much of the international community, the calls for our destruction are met with utter silence. It is even worse because there are many who rush to condemn Israel for defending itself against Iran’s terror proxies.

But not you. Not America. You have acted differently. You’ve condemned the Iranian regime for its genocidal aims. You’ve passed tough sanctions against Iran. History will salute you, America.

President Obama has said that the United States is determined to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. He successfully led the Security Council to adopt sanctions against Iran. You in Congress passed even tougher sanctions. These words and deeds are vitally important.

Yet the Ayatollah regime briefly suspended its nuclear program only once, in 2003, when it feared the possibility of military action. That same year, Muammar Qadaffi gave up his nuclear weapons program, and for the same reason. The more Iran believes that all options are on the table, the less the chance of confrontation. This is why I ask you to continue to send an unequivocal message: That America will never permit Iran to develop nuclear weapons.

As for Israel, if history has taught the Jewish people anything, it is that we must take calls for our destruction seriously. We are a nation that rose from the ashes of the Holocaust. When we say never again, we mean never again. Israel always reserves the right to defend itself.

My friends, while Israel will be ever vigilant in its defense, we will never give up on our quest for peace. I guess we’ll give it up when we achieve it. Israel wants peace. Israel needs peace. We’ve achieved historic peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan that have held up for decades.

I remember what it was like before we had peace. I was nearly killed in a firefight inside the Suez Canal. I mean that literally. I battled terrorists along both banks of the Jordan River. Too many Israelis have lost loved ones. I know their grief. I lost my brother.

So no one in Israel wants a return to those terrible days. The peace with Egypt and Jordan has long served as an anchor of stability and peace in the heart of the Middle East.

This peace should be bolstered by economic and political support to all those who remain committed to peace.

The peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan are vital. But they’re not enough. We must also find a way to forge a lasting peace with the Palestinians. Two years ago, I publicly committed to a solution of two states for two peoples: A Palestinian state alongside the Jewish state.

I am willing to make painful compromises to achieve this historic peace. As the leader of Israel, it is my responsibility to lead my people to peace. This is not easy for me. I recognize that in a genuine peace, we will be required to give up parts of the Jewish homeland. In Judea and Samaria, the Jewish people are not foreign occupiers. We are not the British in India. We are not the Belgians in the Congo.

This is the land of our forefathers, the Land of Israel, to which Abraham brought the idea of one God, where David set out to confront Goliath, and where Isaiah saw a vision of eternal peace. No distortion of history can deny the four thousand year old bond, between the Jewish people and the Jewish land.

But there is another truth: The Palestinians share this small land with us. We seek a peace in which they will be neither Israel’s subjects nor its citizens. They should enjoy a national life of dignity as a free, viable and independent people in their own state. They should enjoy a prosperous economy, where their creativity and initiative can flourish.

We’ve already seen the beginnings of what is possible. In the last two years, the Palestinians have begun to build a better life for themselves. Prime Minister Fayad has led this effort. I wish him a speedy recovery from his recent operation. We’ve helped the Palestinian economy by removing hundreds of barriers and roadblocks to the free flow of goods and people. The results have been nothing short of remarkable. The Palestinian economy is booming. It’s growing by more than 10% a year.

Palestinian cities look very different today than they did just a few years ago. They have shopping malls, movie theaters, restaurants, banks. They even have e-businesses. This is all happening without peace. Imagine what could happen with peace. Peace would herald a new day for both peoples. It would make the dream of a broader Arab-Israeli peace a realistic possibility.

So now here is the question. You have to ask it. If the benefits of peace with the Palestinians are so clear, why has peace eluded us? Because all six Israeli Prime Ministers since the signing of Oslo accords agreed to establish a Palestinian state. Myself included. So why has peace not been achieved? Because so far, the Palestinians have been unwilling to accept a Palestinian state, if it meant accepting a Jewish state alongside it.

You see, our conflict has never been about the establishment of a Palestinian state. It has always been about the existence of the Jewish state. This is what this conflict is about. In 1947, the United Nations voted to partition the land into a Jewish state and an Arab state. The Jews said yes. The Palestinians said no. In recent years, the Palestinians twice refused generous offers by Israeli Prime Ministers, to establish a Palestinian state on virtually all the territory won by Israel in the Six Day War.

They were simply unwilling to end the conflict. And I regret to say this: They continue to educate their children to hate. They continue to name public squares after terrorists. And worst of all, they continue to perpetuate the fantasy that Israel will one day be flooded by the descendants of Palestinian refugees.

My friends, this must come to an end. President Abbas must do what I have done. I stood before my people, and I told you it wasn’t easy for me, and I said – “I will accept a Palestinian state”. It is time for President Abbas to stand before his people and say – “I will accept a Jewish state”.

Those six words will change history. They will make clear to the Palestinians that this conflict must come to an end. That they are not building a state to continue the conflict with Israel, but to end it. They will convince the people of Israel that they have a true partner for peace. With such a partner, the people of Israel will be prepared to make a far reaching compromise. I will be prepared to make a far reaching compromise.

This compromise must reflect the dramatic demographic changes that have occurred since 1967. The vast majority of the 650,000 Israelis who live beyond the 1967 lines, reside in neighborhoods and suburbs of Jerusalem and Greater Tel Aviv.

These areas are densely populated but geographically quite small. Under any realistic peace agreement, these areas, as well as other places of critical strategic and national importance, will be incorporated into the final borders of Israel.

The status of the settlements will be decided only in negotiations. But we must also be honest. So I am saying today something that should be said publicly by anyone serious about peace. In any peace agreement that ends the conflict, some settlements will end up beyond Israel’s borders. The precise delineation of those borders must be negotiated. We will be very generous on the size of a future Palestinian state. But as President Obama said, the border will be different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967. Israel will not return to the indefensible lines of 1967.

We recognize that a Palestinian state must be big enough to be viable, independent and prosperous. President Obama rightly referred to Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people, just as he referred to the future Palestinian state as the homeland of the Palestinian people. Jews from around the world have a right to immigrate to the Jewish state. Palestinians from around the world should have a right to immigrate, if they so choose, to a Palestinian state. This means that the Palestinian refugee problem will be resolved outside the borders of Israel.

As for Jerusalem, only a democratic Israel has protected freedom of worship for all faiths in the city. Jerusalem must never again be divided. Jerusalem must remain the united capital of Israel. I know that this is a difficult issue for Palestinians. But I believe with creativity and goodwill a solution can be found.

This is the peace I plan to forge with a Palestinian partner committed to peace. But you know very well, that in the Middle East, the only peace that will hold is a peace you can defend.

So peace must be anchored in security. In recent years, Israel withdrew from South Lebanon and Gaza. But we didn’t get peace. Instead, we got 12,000 thousand rockets fired from those areas on our cities, on our children, by Hezbollah and Hamas. The UN peacekeepers in Lebanon failed to prevent the smuggling of this weaponry. The European observers in Gaza evaporated overnight. So if Israel simply walked out of the territories, the flow of weapons into a future Palestinian state would be unchecked. Missiles fired from it could reach virtually every home in Israel in less than a minute. I want you to think about that too. Imagine that right now we all had less than 60 seconds to find shelter from an incoming rocket. Would you live that way? Would anyone live that way? Well, we aren’t going to live that way either.

The truth is that Israel needs unique security arrangements because of its unique size. Israel is one of the smallest countries in the world. Mr. Vice President, I’ll grant you this. It’s bigger than Delaware. It’s even bigger than Rhode Island. But that’s about it. Israel on the 1967 lines would be half the width of the Washington Beltway.

Now here’s a bit of nostalgia. I first came to Washington thirty years ago as a young diplomat. It took me a while, but I finally figured it out: There is an America beyond the Beltway. But Israel on the 1967 lines would be only nine miles wide. So much for strategic depth.

So it is therefore absolutely vital for Israel’s security that a Palestinian state be fully demilitarized. And it is vital that Israel maintain a long-term military presence along the Jordan River. Solid security arrangements on the ground are necessary not only to protect the peace, they are necessary to protect Israel in case the peace unravels. For in our unstable region, no one can guarantee that our peace partners today will be there tomorrow.

And when I say tomorrow, I don’t mean some distant time in the future. I mean tomorrow. Peace can be achieved only around the negotiating table. The Palestinian attempt to impose a settlement through the United Nations will not bring peace. It should be forcefully opposed by all those who want to see this conflict end. I appreciate the President’s clear position on this issue. Peace cannot be imposed. It must be negotiated. But it can only be negotiated with partners committed to peace.

And Hamas is not a partner for peace. Hamas remains committed to Israel’s destruction and to terrorism. They have a charter. That charter not only calls for the obliteration of Israel, but says ‘kill the Jews wherever you find them’. Hamas’ leader condemned the killing of Osama bin Laden and praised him as a holy warrior. Now again I want to make this clear. Israel is prepared to sit down today and negotiate peace with the Palestinian Authority. I believe we can fashion a brilliant future of peace for our children. But Israel will not negotiate with a Palestinian government backed by the Palestinian version of Al Qaeda.

So I say to President Abbas: Tear up your pact with Hamas, Sit down and negotiate! Make peace with the Jewish state! And if you do, I promise you this. Israel will not be the last country to welcome a Palestinian state as a new member of the United Nations. It will be the first to do so.

My friends, the momentous trials of the last century, and the unfolding events of this century, attest to the decisive role of the United States in advancing peace and defending freedom. Providence entrusted the United States to be the guardian of liberty. All peoples who cherish freedom owe a profound debt of gratitude to your great nation. Among the most grateful nations is my nation, the people of Israel, who have fought for their liberty and survival against impossible odds, in ancient and modern times alike.

I speak on behalf of the Jewish people and the Jewish state when I say to you, representatives of America, Thank you. Thank you for your unwavering support for Israel. Thank you for ensuring that the flame of freedom burns bright throughout the world. May God bless all of you. And may God forever bless the United States of America.

Sunday, May 29, 2011

Keep your powder dry

Arctic Patriot posted a rant concerning the fact that we - ourselves and our forebears - allowed things to get as bad as they are here in this country. For those of you showing up late, who think because you still have a job, can afford to throw some ribeyes on the grill, and can afford the payments on your BMW, F350, or Prius parked in a garage that hasn't been foreclosed on, that things are actually pretty good - listen up.

As AP and Karl Denninger, and so many others have noted, we are no longer free. Matter of fact, we haven't been for many years, but it has gotten geometrically worse here recently. Even if you can close your eyes, hold your nose, and pretend the economy isn't that bad, believe the lie that unemployment is only 9 or ten percent, that the dollar is still worth the paper it is printed upon, that you will be able to keep your doctor and your health insurance policy when the new "healthcare" system kicks into full swing and still be able to access healthcare that is better than what Canadians, the British, and the Cubans suffer with, that you will be able to retire before you are 70 with enough money to actually live on, you still don't know the half of it. Even if you believe inflation is low, that the Consumer Price Index means a damn thing when the cost of food and energy - including the diesel and gasoline required to move everything for sale to market - is not figured into the equation, you are still missing the big picture.

Yes, it is scary, terribly frightening to think that the debt that Obama and Congress have run up, and the devaluation of the dollar that Bernanke has been creating by printing more and more currency that isn't backed by anything, could cause economic collapse. That the material items we have surrounded ourselves with - and even the "poor", the entitled who are drawing welfare and ADC, have their smart phones, large screen TVs, X-Boxes, and stereo systems - could end up being lost when the welfare checks or unemployment insurance ends. When your job is lost because your company simply cannot afford the cost of covering all of their employees with mandated health insurance. When the cost of fuel for shipping their product shuts down the factory where you or your wife works. When the hospital closes because it can no longer afford the cost of treating patients on Medicaid, Medicare, or the free run through the emergency room and obstetrics for all of those illegal aliens who have come here to have their "anchor" babies.

If you can ignore all of that, because Lord knows it is indeed frightening, how are you even going to notice the fact that you are no longer free, no longer able to live as a free man should? Perhaps you've noticed, and then turned the page or changed the channel, that six year old girls are having their pudenda groped by low-wage TSA agents looking for box cutters and explosives. That your wives are having their breasts fondled by muslim TSA agents in blue burkhas and hijaabs. That your mother, who lost a breast to cancer, has to remove her prosthesis in front of strangers to prove she isn't trying to slip a little Semtex onto the plane.

Perhaps you heard about the recent Supreme Court ruling that says you must not resist if the police illegally break down your door and force their way into your house because, gosh, you can always take them to civil court and sue them for their criminal actions. The crime of which they will never be charged with. You can afford a lawyer, can't you? And the time away from work to pursue the case? And the medical bills from being knocked down, beaten, and/or shot by the SWAT team? And the repairs to your door, the furniture they destroyed, your dead dog, and all the other damage they caused before they discovered they were at the wrong address? Well, if not, maybe your surviving spouse or your heirs can afford it. The Supreme Court doesn't care. The Fourth Amendment doesn't matter anymore.

We've stood by while Federal agents shot and killed our dog, our fourteen-year-old son, and our wife holding our infant in her arms. We've stood by while the FBI burned down our church with over 70 men, women, and children inside, because one man living there was thought to be doing something illegal. They had to burn those children to death in order to protect them from the man they claim was supposedly molesting some of them (after they decided the first reason they targeted him wasn't lurid enough.) We continue to stand by while Federal agents, local cops, and SWAT teams kill elderly homeowners, developmentally challenged whittlers of wood holding pocket knives, and fathers of young children who served two dangerous and deadly deployments to Iraq, but who have never been arrested or involved in a crime.

We've sat silent while the Pima County Sheriff's Department, led by the loud-mouthed, lying Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, allowed its SWAT team to target Jose Guerena, a soldier sent twice to the Sandbox, who came home alive to his wife and two small children only to be riddled by bullets fired by the cowards, the murdering scum of the Pima County Sheriff's Department SWAT team. Scum who understand they can kill American citizens, the ones who pay their wages, the ones they are sworn to protect, with complete impunity. Without consequence. Scum who left him bleeding out on the floor for over an hour and a half before they would allow medics to check his status and attempt to treat his cooling body. Scum who wanted Jose Guerena dead.

So, Arctic Patriot is pissed. I am pissed. Anyone paying attention should be pissed, but most people aren't paying attention. They might have, but it's too scary. There is too much to lose if they protest. There's nothing they can do. "You can't fight city hall."

Tomorrow is Memorial Day. What does that mean, what are we commemorating? Our service men and women, sure. But why? What have they done to commemorate? Yes, they fought in World Wars and in military actions around the globe, but for what? Well, we claim it was for freedom. To keep us free. To keep America the land of the free and home of the brave.

Do we seem free to you? Do we seem brave to you, when we allow our wives and daughters and mothers and grandmothers to be groped by imbeciles in uniform, simply so they can get permission to travel? When we allow law enforcement officers to kill us at whim, for little or no reason? Because they got the wrong address, or they didn't like how your wife was holding the baby? And then taunt you, the husband, and her surviving children, using their FBI loudspeakers to ask, "What's for breakfast, Vicky?", when it is Vicky's corpse lying in your kitchen, killed by a murdering FBI sniper named Lon Horiuchi?

Things have gotten bad, whether most folks want to admit it or not. Some of us have tried to explain this to our fellow citizens, through email on lists we frequent, only to be ignored. Some of us have tried to educate those who simply didn't get the memo through writing our blogs, only to be ignored or marginalized, told we were making too big a deal out of the whole thing.

Many of us who did get the memo simply don't know what to do. As Claire Wolfe is famous for saying, "It's too late to use the system and too soon to shoot the bastards." There are those of us who no longer believe it is too soon, but don't - for the sake of wives, children, family members - want to march out and start shooting, to be killed and characterized as "lone wolf" domestic terrorists like Timothy McVeigh, or members of some mythical "militia group".

I realize you aren't going to want to believe that it actually is time. That it is actually past time. But consider my last blog entry by Karl Denninger, and think about what kind of America you want to live in. Then give this quote from Winston Churchill some thought:

"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."

Out-of-control government

Karl Denninger at The Market Ticker, writes about how our Republic has decomposed into a nation where the government has slipped its bonds and now rules the citizens, instead of serving them as intended. He gives specific examples, and shows how badly things have deteriorated. It's not a long post, so here it is in its entirety:

Memorial Day Musings

As we grill up some burgers, ribs or chicken, downing that proverbial six pack in remembrance of those who have given their lives for our Republic, perhaps we should take stock of what our alleged Republic has become.

Do we have a free country in any meaningful fashion?

Our forefathers primarily went to war with Britain over two issues: Taxation Without Representation and Writs of Assistance. While we're at it we'll add Equal Protection Under The Law.

The former everyone understands: The extraction of taxes from the people without any right to direct where the funds go.

How are we doing today?

Some half of the population pays no Federal Tax. They receive funds, net-net. Since it is now quite possible to "vote for a living", that's exactly what has happened. But this means that for each and every person who pays taxes on net, you no longer have representation.

How about the latter?

Well, we have the following:

  • Searches on I-40 in Tennessee; these have been clearly identified (and admitted!) through media investigation to be effectively stopping drivers for profit. Where's the probable cause to search a traffic stop's vehicle for money and then declare it "drug proceeds" simply due to which direction the vehicle is traveling on I-40? In this case the police aren't even bothering with the formality of getting the Writ of Assistance - they're simply stealing the funds.

  • Kicking down doors in Kentucky. Yes, the cops were chasing a person who allegedly sold crack cocaine. But we're then supposed to believe that seconds after this person ran into one of two apartments - being actively chased by the police - the suspect lit up a joint? (The rationale for the cops kicking down the door was that they smelled marijuana, and upon knocking heard "movement" and believed the occupants might be "destroying evidence.") That conviction was upheld in the United States Supreme Court - even though the person they were looking for wasn't in the apartment.

  • Arresting a man for refusing entry to his apartment when no evidence of a crime was present and no probable cause existed. When the cops barged in anyway, he used only the amount of force necessary to prevent the unlawful entry. This event not only was upheld as "lawful" but the State Supreme Court (Indiana) ruled that you have no right to resist an unlawful entry as you can appeal to the courts. How well does that work when you've been shot dead during that unlawful entry?

  • Think people being shot dead - some entirely innocent - doesn't happen? Oh really eh? Talk to the dead young girl in Detroit. Or to the dead former servicemember in Arizona. Or the deaf woodcarver in Seattle. Or the hundreds of others. In some cases was the person being sought inside? Yes. Was in some cases the person guilty of an offense? Yes. In how many cases have the circumstances justified summary execution? More to the point, in how many of these cases was this sort of violent entry justified? There's only one good excuse for that: If the person being sought has taken hostages. Otherwise good old-fashioned police work dictates that it's far more likely for the police to effectuate their lawful arrest by waiting for the subject to depart his residence and arrest him outside (where he's alone, cannot barricade himself, and cannot easily be in possession of anything more powerful than a handgun - which he has to be carrying concealed.) The use of military tactics must be reserved for those cases where imminent harm to innocent people is likely to occur. (If you think the suspect is going to flush evidence shut off the water to his house!)

  • The Patriot Act. 4th Amendment? Where? And more to the point, show me where it's necessary. You can do that by documenting how it would have stopped 9/11 when we had every ability to do so as the hijackers were reported to the FBI in plenty of time to prevent the attack. Government malfeasance and misfeasance is neverjustification for new laws. Ever. Malfeasance and misfeasance must result in firings, not new legislation. Never mind that un-uniformed non-citizen combatants have no "Constitutional Rights" to abridge as the International Laws of War allow you to shoot such a person when caught as a spy. If there's actual evidence of criminal wrongdoing such as plotting an actual terrorist attack what's the problem with getting an ordinary warrant for your activities as a law enforcement agency?

  • The increasingly secretive - and militarized - police forces. Throughout the land there are initiatives being pushed to prevent you, the average citizen, from video or audio-taping your encounters with law enforcement. Why? This, at the same time that we are treated to literal cameras on every corner, cameras in every cop car (scanning license plates in real-time in many cases!) and more. What's wrong with a nice, robust right of review of the acts of our "law enforcement" community? Exactly how many dogs have we seen video evidence of being shot execution-style when they have displayed no aggressive behavior at all? Or how about the known fact that police can and do lie to cover up their own acts of malfeasance? This is not a bald assertion; The Federal Government has in fact argued that it has the right to lie in sworn proceedings before the courts! (Islamic Sura Council .v. FBI) In that case the government's declared right to lie was rebuked - but no punishment was meted out, nor has it been in other, similar cases.

As for Equal Protection, may I ask where? Many forms of "special status" are in fact ensconced within the law. Others are notable by their absence. For example:

  • It is "more illegal" to assault (or worse) a police officer, a federal official, or certain minorities than it is other people. Predicated on..... exactly what? If we have equal protection under the law, why is it more of an offense to assault someone if they're black than white, a cop than an office janitor? Either the offense is worthy of punishment or it is not. Equal protection means what it says.

  • Congress can (and does) trade on inside information. I have often written on this topic. But if you do the same thing, you go to prison. It must be nice to know what the outcome will be of some Congressional action and trade in the markets on that information entirely legally and yet if you're a common person and get inside information and trade on it you go to prison. Being a Congressperson isn't just about making laws. It's also about personally profiting from the laws you make. Isn't that effectively identical to what "Kings" and "Barons" were all about?

  • It's illegal to rob someone through deception and you can go to prison for many years. How is it that the words "stable prices", which are defined as the Federal Reserve's mandate, are turned into "2% inflation" which serially robs you of half of your wealth within a working man's life and yet nobody goes to prison for doing it? Just as damning, the FDIC's "Prompt Corrective Action" law contains so many "shalls" that it's difficult to count them, all of which (if complied with) prevent any depositor fund losses. Yet we have seen dozens of bank failures and in virtually every case PCA was ignored - with no punishment - and the losses have run to the billions. You'd go to prison for that sort of intentional malfeasance. Have government officials even lost their jobs, say much less faced indictment? Nope.

So as we say "Thank you" to those patriots, past and present, who have risked all, and those who have given all for our way of life in America, let us at the same time consider what it is that we have left of the founders' principles - and whether we, as a body politic and members of the armed forces, will sit for these willful and intentional acts of destruction of our Constitution, or whether we will instead use that time before the grill and while performing our 12oz curls to formulate peaceful yet forceful insistence that these, and other, violations of that Constitution be remedied.

Failed State Colonization (aka: Western Civilization Crumbles)

Another in a line of insightful articles from Daniel Greenfield.

Migration from failed states to successful states is leading the way to utter ruin. The Pakistanization of Europe and the Mexicanization of America are two examples of the phenomenon. But there are others. Cote d'Ivorie, one of the more prosperous African countries, has been taken over by Muslim migrant workers, with the armed backing of the UN. What happened resembled events in South Africa, but this time both sides were black. The difference was not racial, but religious. It is another example of an ongoing phenomenon. Failed State Colonization.

Failed State Colonization is the greatest threat of our time. It marks a major shift from the old era of colonization where successful states colonized unsuccessful ones. Now failed states are colonizing successful ones. Failed states have become a global plague through their population migrations, which spread terrorism, crime and bankrupt the social systems of successful states. And as the migration wave continues FSC is turning formerly successful states into failed states. Failed states have higher birth rates and stronger group loyalties. That combination weaponizes their migrations into successful states with lower birth rates and weak group loyalties into a takeover.

Failed State Colonization uses the disunity, tolerance and democracy of successful states to destroy them from the inside. It's not always a conscious act, but that doesn't make it any less destructive.

Read the rest here: http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2011/05/failed-state-colonization-greatest.html

Saturday, May 28, 2011

The NRA fails yet again

The Patriot Act, which was written with the (stated) good intention of being used to fight terrorism, has been abused many, many times since its inception. The FBI itself has admitted to collecting thousands upon thousands of phone records with neither warrant nor a direct investigation targeted to warrant them. The act permits law enforcement to write its own warrantless "national security" letters collecting information on American citizens - not just foreign nationals in this country legally or illegally - with little or no oversight whatsoever.

The Patriot Act has come up for renewal of certain time-limited sections which Congress is voting to approve. Senator Rand Paul wrote an amendment to require a warrant which indicates the information is germane to a specific investigation before law enforcement can access the records of firearms purchases by Americans. These records are called "4473's", because that is the number of the form used to gather that information for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. These records are by law kept by the Federal Firearms licensees who sell rifles and handguns to the public, but are only accessible to the BATF in the case of an actual investigation of a specific firearm used in a crime or if the licensee (FFL) goes out of business.

The government, through the BATF specifically, is not supposed to keep records they can access of what guns are purchased by citizens. There are specific laws written to prevent this, although BATF and the FBI have circumvented them at times, including during the "Instant check" program where a call is made to law enforcement during the purchase of every firearm by a citizen. Those records are supposed to be wiped, but government insiders have stated that they usually are not destroyed, but kept in a database.

In every country where these records have been kept and accessed by the government, the government has later used them to confiscate firearms from the public. And in almost every country where this has been done - with the exception of England and Australia, so far - the government has gone on to oppress and kill its own citizens after taking away their means of defense, their firearms. JPFO, the Jews For the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, has documented the almost 200 million - yes, 200 million - people killed by their own governments in the Twentieth Century, all in countries where guns were controlled, recorded, and then confiscated. Nazi Germany, Russia, Red China, Turkey, Cambodia, and others.

So, Senator Rand Paul attempted to get an amendment inserted into the Patriot Act. Not to keep these records from ever being seen by the government, but simply to state that viewing the 4473 forms must require an actual warrant, signed by a judge, and specifying what was being searched for. The Senate voted 85-10 to refuse this amendment. obviously including a number of the Republicans we thought were interested in protecting the Constitution (4th Amendment) and the citizens who hired them to represent them.

The NRA, National Rifle Association, touted by the Democrats as the premier lobby for gun-crazed, Bible-toting, rednecked veterans and other ignorant American citizens, sat this one out. They were silent on this issue, instead of fighting to protect the rights of the people they pretend to lobby for, to the tune of many millions of dollars in dues and donations. They caved in again, simply because they really aren't interested in protecting the Second Amendment or citizens rights, but actually exist solely to enrich themselves at the expense of gun owners, playing a "double-agent" role of claiming to support gun owners while sucking up to legislators in favor of gun control.

At times this toothless lion will roar and posture, pretending to fight against the government's desire to control guns more stringently, but it is all a sham. The NRA has had a hand in writing every major piece of gun control legislation written, including the NFA: the National Firearms Act of 1934 - the grandaddy of all gun control:

"The NRA supported The National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, sawed-off rifles and sawed-off shotguns. ... NRA support of Federal gun legislation did not stop with the earlier Dodd bills. It currently backs several Senate and House bills which, through amendment, would put new teeth into the National and Federal Firearms Acts." —American Rifleman, March 1968, P. 22

They also had a large hand in writing the Gun Control Act of 1968, the second most damaging piece of gun control legislation written in America. You can read more about it here:

I'm certain that those on the Left who love gun control and would prefer to see the Second Amendment struck from our Bill of Rights would actually donate to the NRA if they knew - as most politicians of both parties already know - that the NRA has done more to support gun control than any other group in the nation, including all of the liberal organizations such as Handgun Control. As it has so many times before, the NRA has sided with the DC elite to quietly sit back and allow the Patriot Act to include identifying each and every one of us who has ever purchased a firearm. If the decision is ever reached by our government to begin firearm confiscation - as they did in New Orleans when law enforcement went from door to door to confiscate guns from innocent residents who needed them to protect themselves from the looters and criminals who remained in the city after the flooding - they will have been assisted by the NRA's failure to keep this information out of the hands of those in government who wish to deny the rights of American citizens to self-defense.

Don't get confused now: the NRA had nothing to do with the recent Supreme Court decisions supporting the "individual right" construction of the Second Amendment. Yes, they appeared in court, and tried to "piggy-back" upon the efforts of the Second Amendment Foundation and the GOA (Gun Owners of America), in the suits that were brought before the Supreme Court. It needs to be noted that the NRA sat on prior attempts to get these cases before the Supreme Court, saying it was "premature", "the time isn't ripe", etc. The Second Amendment Foundation via Alan Gura, and the GOA were finally able to push the cases through - in spite of the NRA, not because of them or with their actual help. As usual, though, the NRA has attempted to take credit for these successes, pretending to those who pay their millions in dues and donations that it was all thanks to them at the NRA. What a crock.

I am a gun owner and I say, "Damn the NRA."

Thursday, May 26, 2011

Norwegian females in Oslo fair game for muslim rapists (but I repeat myself)

But it's OK. Western women are simply "uncovered meat" according to the imams of Islam, and may be taken without question by any muslim male. It is their right. Be advised - in case you missed the memo: "non-Western" and "foreign" are PC for "muslim" in this video/article.


A psychologist nails it.

From a post at the Gates of Vienna blog site, Islam Means Never Having To Say You're Sorry,
I was directed to an article that should be read by anyone and everyone concerned about the issue of Islam and the inability of its true believers to integrate into Western civilization, indeed ANY civilization. A psychologist from Denmark, Dr. Nicolai Sennels, who worked with many adolescent muslim criminals wrote an essay that can be viewed at: http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/63122/sec_id/63122.
It is called Muslims and Westerners: The Psychological Differences.

In conclusion, he states:

After having heard the stories from Muslims themselves about their culture, religion, home countries, Muslim ghettoes, their views on non-Muslims, democracy, women and freedom, I have no hope that we can avoid “blood, sweat and tears” during this conflict. It will take many idealistic women and men many years before we reach a point where we can be sure that our freedom-loving culture will win such a conflict. As it stands now, such victory is not at all certain. I hope that many brave people will stand up for what we all believe in, and be mindful of how easily it can be lost. They could write letters to their newspapers, study the Qu’ran and the crime statistics (the only two sources you need to convince yourself that Muslim immigration is a very bad idea). Then they could present their opinions in a confident manner when conversation turns to the subject of Islam and Muslim immigration at lunch, work and at family dinners. A popular movement composed of average citizens standing up against the immature and psychologically unhealthy culture of Islam is the way and the goal. Nothing is more important than that.

Unfortunately, Dr. Sennels misses the logical extension of his experience and research: that true believers of orthodox Islam, as it is written in the Quran, Hadith and Sura, cannot change. To become what the West refers to as "moderate" muslims they must become apostate. That is a death sentence per orthodox Islam.

Please understand that this is a logical paradox - to be able to coexist with the rest of the world, a muslim cannot be a muslim, a follower of Islam and its prophet. If he cleaves to his "religion"/ideology, he must force the rest of the world - without exception - to submit to Islam or die. This is not an ideology that can be co-existed with. So, Islam means not just "death to the Jews" but death to Western civilization.

If this is acceptable to you, they might permit you to become dhimmi, a submissive slave to Islam and its muslim followers. Which will include allowing them to beat and rape your children, as females are chattel and "beardless boys are for pleasure". If you don't feel that suits your lifestyle, if you don't want your children growing up as muslim slaves - or worse, as toys for pederasts - then you must commit to fighting Islam, to stopping muslim immigration, the construction of more mosques, and the growing acceptance of Sharia law in America. It is probably too late for Europe.

The South desired secession. Were they wrong?

In the preamble to the Declaration of Independence, it was written:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

Throwing off such government didn't mean accepting anarchy in its place, but rather instituting a new government to "guard their future security." States were meant to be sovereign over the loose republic that was formed as a Federal government, at least by the likes of Jefferson and most of the Founders. True, Hamilton and others of his ilk wanted a strong central government, but that was not the wish of most of the rebels who had just fought and died to gain freedom from the strong central government of King George.

This is something that those who would conceal or deny the true meaning of the Second Amendment want you to forget: that the right to keep and bear arms had nothing to do with hunting or even personal self-defense (although that was understood to be every man's right as well), but to maintain the possession and skill at arms that was necessary to resist tyranny. These men who wrote the Bill of Rights had just prior to this needed the same military arms as the British in order to gain their freedom. They didn't feel it necessary to state the obvious, that arms are required to prevent government from running roughshod over the People.

And it wasn't the "right of the militia to keep and bear arms", but the right of the People to do so that "shall not be infringed." The prefacing clause mentioned the militia because the Founders knew that being "well-regulated" - requiring both the possession of the proper weapons and equipment and proper training - was a more likely guarantee of being effective in the People's fight to remain free, should they need to resist their own government once more. It did not limit "the People" to only those individuals in the militia. It simply stated that such a militia would not even be possible if the people were disbarred the ability to keep and bear arms.

So, the Founders knew that a "long train of abuses" with no relenting by government demanded a change. The South felt the need for a change as well. As I have posted before, it had little to do with slavery and much to do with the tariffs and unfair trade practices (so much for the Commerce clause) that the Federal government was imposing upon the Southern states. They did not seek to use force to stop the Federal government from imposing these restrictions and fees. They did not seek to force their vision of proper government upon the Northern states. They simply wished to separate, and form their own union.

Lincoln felt that the income of the Federal government would be sorely diminished by the loss of income from the South. He also feared the reduction of Federal power should some states be successful in removing themselves from fealty to the Federal government. I am certain he feared that the southern states would, in the long run, be joined by other states desiring a change in government.

For this peaceful attempt at change, hundreds of thousands of Southern men died at arms. Thousands of Southern civilians died as well, and Sherman was not the only Northern military commander to rape, pillage and burn his way across the South. At Lincoln's written direction. A goodly number of Northern soldiers were unwilling conscripts, and they died for the North's aggression against the South, as well.

[Edit: How much of this was truly "North" against "South" as opposed to the Federal government versus state's rights is unclear to me. I don't believe the citizens of the North would have demanded war against the South had the Federal government not decided - with the collusion of central bankers and other oligarchs as well, I'm sure - that it did not wish to relinquish power over, and income generation from, the South. There were actually few Northerners with a strong enough view against slavery (the lie presented after the fact), and those that did were most likely against armed violence anyway for religious reasons. War would not have ensued had not Lincoln forced the citizens of the North to mobilize. Often at the threat of imprisonment.]

Honorable Means, at the Bonnie Blue Blog (http://thebonnieblueblog.blogspot.com/) responded to a fellow who posted
"Does anyone truly believe that things would have been better had we splintered into a group of individual states or mini-nations instead of being the United States of America? I don’t think any person with any degree of intelligence will argue that point."
HM lists a long train of current abuses that indicate why he thinks we would indeed have benefited had the South been successful in seceding. Please read his post at:


Consider bookmarking and following his blog. He writes well and often posts things we all need to read, things that will open your eyes to important ideas that you might otherwise have missed.

Saturday, May 21, 2011

The Piece Corps

Daniel Greenfield hits another one out of the ballpark. He speaks of the 1,000+ women raped while serving in the Peace Corps, and explains why it happened, is still happening, and will continue to happen to women who place themselves within reach of certain cultures. Especially those cultures which have no respect for women, who believe they are either chattel or merely possessors of convenient orifices.

As Lara Logan learned, some cultures - and muslim/Arabic culture figures predominantly, considering their sheer numbers, their massive immigration into Europe and America, and their efforts to become controllers of the countries they live in (the so-called "Arab Spring", which should rightly be called the "Muslim Spring") - are not safe for any women, but especially for foreign women, especially for blonde Caucasian American/European women who are obviously not of their culture/family/tribe. Rape is endemic in countries such as Sweden, Norway, and Denmark. It is common in the rest of Europe as well, hushed by the governments involved. In England, Pakis are known to lure and then rape - or gang-rape - English girls who they are taught are "fair game", being non-believers as well as symbols of those the Pakis believe oppress them.

Daniel doesn't cover that in this particular article, nor the sex-slave trade that still exists in the Middle East (especially Saudi Arabia) and in Eastern Europe which Europeans and Americans don't want to know about, hear about. But what he does cover here he covers so very well, making his point clearly and cleanly. Liberals are so undiscerning in their "causes", so ignorant of reality. They believe they can "improve" humanity, cure the ills of the world with their good intentions. Some liberal, altruistic women have been awakened to a brutal truth about the cultures they seek to improve. That those cultures are mired in a medieval inability to behave in a civilized fashion, and that their culture must evolve before their conditions can improve. But Daniel says it so much better than I can.

Read it at Sultan Knish (http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2011/05/liberalisms-rape-corps.html)

Wednesday, May 11, 2011

They lied to you. They're still doing it.

The last time I posted on events concerning the (un) Civil War, Lincoln's War to Enslave The South, back in April, I posted information concerning the myths we were all taught about Abraham Lincoln. If you followed the links and read the articles, you learned there were excellent reasons to believe that war - which claimed more lives than any other war, police action, or "Kinetic military action" in which we have ever been involved - was not based on slavery but on Lincoln's decision that he would not permit secession to occur. That war was not started to "free the slaves". When Lincoln was inaugurated, he was still in favor of slavery, and never, ever changed his mind about white superiority. (He even tried to talk our nation's black citizens into emigrating to the newly formed country of Liberia.)

I recently read a terrific article written by a fellow whose family fought in Lincoln's war, the War of Northern Aggression, as some of our Southern brethren refer to it, The War to Prevent Southern Secession. Something that has been written of, but ignored by most educators in our public schools, is the fact that there were very significant cultural differences between the North and the South. I'm not referring to slavery, which existed in the North as well, if not in as great numbers. I'm referring to the difference in living, in gentility, manners, speech and thought. The South was not bound by a love of slavery, but by their culture and their unwillingness to relinquish their rights to the Federal government, especially concerning economics and the tariffs that were being imposed on the cotton-producing states.

Lincoln, just like Obama (and many other politicians, truth be told) made speeches to get into office, and while in office, that he completely refuted by his actions while he was the President. Such as:

Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right, which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize and make their own, of so much of the territory as they inhabit.....Abraham Lincoln in his speech in Congress in 1846.

The gentleman who writes The Bonnie Blue Blog (http://thebonnieblueblog.blogspot.com) as "Honorable Means" recently posted concerning a Yankee teacher (teaching assistant and "adjunct instructor" at several schools in Rhode Island and elsewhere) who considers himself a historian. This fellow believes that "Civil War" re-enactors do a disservice to the history of that war. HM responded, relating his family's involvement in that war and his reasons for believing this "historian" to be completely wrong in his assertions. HM says it ever so much better than I could:

09 MAY 2011

Yankee historian: Re-enactors are fools

It is an interesting, if depressing, intellectual exercise to read any salon.com article by Professor Glenn LaFantasie of Western Kentucky University, and then to peruse the comments section afterward. Don't ask me why I keep doing it.

This article was published on Saturday, and as I write this, there are 102 comments.

The article bashes reenactors, especially the Confederate reenactors. LaFantasie ridicules their title "living historians," and the efforts that reenactors make in trying to physically recall the life of the soldier of 1861-65. Because the actual war was so much more harsh, reenacting cannot be the appropriate way to commemorate the War.

Reenacting may lack the pain of an amputated limb without anesthesia. It may just be a few thousand bucks in specialty custom clothing and gear, blisters from stiff hobnailed boots, smelling of the eating and sleeping rough, and wondering why the heck you're wearing wool in 97 degree heat.

It is without the equivalent sacrifice, surely, but an honest attempt at commemoration nonetheless. Silly and unfortunate of LaFantasie to scorn the passion of late generations of Americans because it falls short of the actual reality.

Do we need to see and smell the results of double canister on thirty men to commemorate properly?

Do we need to fire the Fort Sumter mortar at 4:30 am on April 12th 2011 for historical accuracy, and wake up blissfully unaware residents of Charleston with the sound of gunfire at a time that this "nation" is engaged in multiple wars?

Do we need to make sure that every explosion is just as loud as the original, even though the increased powder might represent a danger to spectators? These are some of the issues that the author of the article decided to deride.

I think the reenactors, especially the hard-core reenactors, are acutely aware of the inadequacy of their effort to recreate the true experience.

After dissuading the reader from reenacting, the author then guides the reader to the more proper ways to commemorate the War. Generously, LaFantasie acts the professor and guides the reader to many worthy books on the "Civil War" written by court historians towing the Union line.

In order to set the proper mindset to commemorate the War, Professor LaFantasie insists the reader review both the Gettysburg address and the Declaration of Independence.

I will spare you the effort to find the text of the Gettysburg address:

"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."

["...all men are created equal": Meaning all free men are equal under the law, nothing more; it has been extrapolated and then later assumed to refer to the equality of white and black men.

Is it doubted that whites of the North and the South, in great majorities, would have considered racial equality an alien concept?

Whites of the North and the South believed blacks inferior, even those who advocated abolition. But in the context of the Gettysburg address, it is a moot point. "Our forefathers" referenced by Mr. Lincoln, in stating "all men are created equal", referred specifically to free Americans and free Englishmen being equal to royals and nobles--equal in Natural Rights, and equal before blind Justice. This is nothing new, just a reiteration of a Judeo-Christian biblical precept.]

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate, we can not consecrate, we can not hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

[As for the famous..."of the people, by the people, for the people..." I will let H.L. Mencken reply for me:

"The Gettysburg speech was at once the shortest and the most famous oration in American history...the highest emotion reduced to a few poetical phrases. Lincoln himself never even remotely approached it. It is genuinely stupendous. But let us not forget that it is poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense. Think of the argument in it. Put it into the cold words of everyday. The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination – that government of the people, by the people, for the people, should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves."

The true history of the War Between the States is complex, and even a scholar will never personally read more than a small fraction of original sources. Some of these sources will be tainted with the spin or perspective of the person who lived at the time; therefore how much can even a scholar understand with certainty about the War, let alone a mere mundane who takes the scholar's conclusions on faith?

If you read the comments section, you'd be surprised at how many of LaFantasie's readers are certain they know the "Truth" with a capital "T" about the causes of the War. For example, I was shocked when I read in someone's comment that the South formed an army to invade the North. (Yikes! What books have you been smoking?)

In the comments section, as seen following many other typical court historian articles, including other salon.com articles by LaFantasie, again and again I discover that the Confederates were wrong, they were traitors, they lost but they dont seem to get that they lost, and that a myth, the Myth of the Lost Cause, grew up after the Civil War, popularized by Jefferson Davis' Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government. (Yawn. If y'all are so sure of yourselves, why even bother to comment--y'all doth protest too much, methinks... )

For me, the key question to understand the motivation of the Confederate soldiers always boiled down to this: If 90% of Lee's Army were not slave owners, why did they fight so long and so tenaciously, against amazing odds, if the sole reason they fought was for "slavery"?

Because they were racist? White supremacists? Stupid, ignorant, and inbred? Evil? Traitors, rebels, and bushwackers?

Uhh, let me see, ...no.

Try this: They were moral honorable men who left wives and children at home and risked everything they had to fight against what they rightfully believed to be a tyrannical power intent on stamping out their culture. Their worst fears came true.

Of my 6 great great great grandfathers who served in the Confederate States' Army, none were slave owners. I know (as I know anything that seems "true" in life) they didn't fight to keep slaves, or so that rich men that lived far away from their Western Appalachia could keep slaves. These men thought locally.

Why did they fight? Only a few explanations ring true to me, "Lost Cause" myth or not:

They fought because the North invaded the South to force fellow Southern states back into a "nation." (The war was fought to prevent secession)

They fought because the Yankees were "down here." (to defend hearth and home)

They fought because they believed the original country was a voluntary gathering of independent States, and some of these States again wanted to be sovereign and independent, not subject to the whim of a remote executive operating outside the bounds of the Constitution. (fought for the idea of self determination, same as their great-grandparents in the Revolution)

Flag of the free mind

For each of the six men, there might be six or more reasons; I can never know because they left no explanation of their motivation at the time. I can only tell you what I believe to be true.

To Professor LaFantasie: There were many reasons why Northerners and Southerners fought, but you seem to think that only one holds any legitimacy, the other, none at all. As a historian, do you not do injustice to history by delegitimizing and marginalizing the motivation of the Southern patriot?

In my view of history, what is important is to recreate for the reader the context of the times, and understand why different perspectives existed, and to then make it more difficult for the reader to know what they would have done if they lived at the time.

To write polemics is fine and dandy in academia, when one wants to make himself taller by rhetorically cutting off the head of the adjacent scholar. However, polemical writing is illegitimate in writing pure history, that is, history intended toteach rather than indoctrinate.

Here is the rest of the article.